Al 

ISO 



HV 8345 

.at REPORT 

1883 
Copy 1 



OF THE 



Committee on Penitentiary 



TO THE 



THIRTY-SECOND GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 



JEFFEKSON CITY: 

STATE JOURNAL COMPANY, STATE PRINTERS. 

1883. 



' 



?o 



Senate Chamber, \ 
March 16, 1883. J 

Presented by the Committee on Penitentiary, March 16, 1883. Ordered that 
1 ,000 copies with the testimony be printed for the use of the General Assembly, and 
that 1 .000 copies of the report, without the testimony, be printed with the appendix. 

F. C NESBIT, Secretary Senate. 



K; 



REPORT 



Mr. President : Your Committee on Penitentiary respectfully ask 
leave to present the following report: Previous to the meeting of the 
General Assembly, grave charges of mismanagement had been made pub- 
licly against the managers of the Penitentiary, and the newspapers had for 
some time been full of sensational articles relating to the investigation which 
had been made by the Board of Inspectors in August, 1882. When the 
committee perfected an organization, in order to ascertain if the matters 
were of sufficient importance and seemed to have a sufficien foundation in 
fact to demand an investigation, they directed a letter to the Inspectors, 
requesting that the testimony taken in that investigation be placed in their 
hands, which request was promptly complied with. The testimony was read 
by the committee and was of such a character that they deemed a rigid 
investigation necessary, and to that end asked and were granted power b}' 
the Senate to send for persons and papers. In reference to this matter, the 
following letter was received from Gov. Crittenden : 

* 

State of Missouri, Executive Department, \ 
City of Jefferson, Jan. 18, 1883. ]* 

Hon. James McGrath, Chairman Senate Committee on Penitentiary : 

Sik : I enclose you herewith a copy of a letter addressed by me to 
Hon. Henry Lander, Chairman of the Penitentiary Committee in the House 
of Representatives, on the 12th day of January, inst. I respectfully ask 
your committee to make such an examination of the management of that 
institution as I have asked of the House committee. If the Penitentiary has 
been injudiciously or wrongly managed, it should be known ; if, upon the 
other hand, it has been judiciously and properly managed, the Warden 
should have his meed of praise. 

Very respectfully, 

THOS. T. CRITTENDEN. 



The letter enclosed was as follows : 

State of Missouri, Executive Department, ) 
City of Jefferson, Jan. 12, 1883. j 

Hon. Harry Lander, Chairman Penitentiary Committee : 

Sir : I enclose you herewith the testimony taken by the Board of 
Inspectors of the Penitentiary. I'; was sent to me by the Board, and I have 
held it until a Committee on Penitentiary should be appointed by the Speaker 
of your honorable bod} 7 , with the view of delivering it to that committee. 
If compatible with the views of the committee, I suggest that a thorough 
examination be made of the financial and physical management of that 
institution, without fear or favor, and that such a report be made to the 
Legislature as the wisdom of the committee may suggest. 

Very respectfully, 

THOS. T. CRITTENDEN. 

The penitentiary is under the direction of a Board of Inspectors and 
the Warden, the Board being composed of the State Treasurer, the State 
Auditor and the Attorney-General, and their powers and duties are estab- 
lished by law. We find that the Board of Inspectors have not maintained 
that control over the management and discipline of the Penitentiary which 
the law imposes upon them as a duty. While their testimony show^s that 
they made monthly visits to the Penitentiary, with possibly a few exceptions, 
and sometimes oftener than once a month, they failed to keep a record of 
all such meetings and visits as is required by law. Up to August, 1882, they 
made no examination of the invoices of goods bought, or into any of the 
financial transactions of the Penitentiary, further than as such were shown 
in the monthly statements and balance sheets of the Warden. Here, in the 
opinion of your committee, rests primarily the foundation of the charges 
against the management of the Penitentiary. We feel constrained to say 
that had the Inspectors properly performed their duties, as required by law, 
none of the abuses charged, or hereinafter mentioned, could have existed 
without their knowledge. 

The Warden, by virtue of his position, has the charge and custody of 
the Penitentiary prison, with the buildings, stock, provisions, and every 
other description of property pertaining thereto, belonging to the State, and 
it is provided by section 6511 of the Revised Statutes that he shall not sell 
or give to any of the officers or employes of the prison any fuel, forage or 
provisions under his charge, no: permit such things to be taken or used 
except for the use and benefit of the State. We find that the Warden has 
violated some of the provisions of this section, having in a number of 
instances sold forage and fuel to officers and employes. 



It also appears from the testimony that from eight to twelve horses 
belonging to the officers and employes of the prison were kept at the Peni- 
tentiary stables, part of them at the expense of the State. While the evi- 
dence shows that those last mentioned were used in doing the work of the 
State, it is unauthorized by law and the committee considers it an abuse. 
The Inspectors in October, 1882, adopted a resolution prohibiting the keep- 
ing of any horses, other than those belonging to the State, at the Peniten- 
tiary stables, and so far as we can learn this has been strictly enforced. 

For a number of years the State has been leasing a farm in Callaway 
county, opposite the Penitentiary, and there raising potatoes, cabbage and 
other vegetables for the Penitentiary. This has proved quite an advantage 
to the State, financially, as they could be raised for much less than they 
would cost in open market. 

In this connection the committee desires to state that it has examined 
into the charges made that convicts and teams from this farm were used in 
cultivating a farm in that vicinity belonging to or leased by a brother of the 
Warden, and find them to be without foundation in fact. 

It will be seen from the testimony that a barber shop is in operation in 
the second story of the round house, which is patronized by the officers, 
guards and employes of the Penitentiary and some of the contractors and 
their employes. Up to the time of the Inspectors' investig tion, the testi- 
mony shows that this shop was under the charge of R. D. Willis and that 
three able-bodied convicts were employed there. Some of the patrons of the 
shop paid for the work they had done, the shop jdelding, according to the 
testimony, from $10 to $15 per month, out of which the expenses were paid. 
The profits of the shop, since January 1, 1881, and which were retained by 
R. I). Willis, amounts, according to his testimony, to about $125. It has 
been a custom for many years to keep a barber shop here, the profits of 
which were retained by the party having control of it, but the committee 
does not sanction the custom. The labor of these three convicts is worth, at 
the regular contract price of forty cents a day, $3(30 a year. The committee 
is of the opinion that if the officers and employes desire a shop there, they 
should employ the convicts, as do the contractors, and not have this work 
done at the expense of the State. The Inspectors adopted a resolution in 
October. 1882, requiring an account of the receipts and expenditures of this 
shop to be kept, the balance, after paying all expenses, to be paid into the 
State Treasury, and it is now managed as required therein. 

We find that, while the law requires that no purchase of supplies in 
excess of $500 shall be made by the Warden without authority from the 
Hoard of Inspectors, such purchases have been repeatedly made. While we 
regard such purchases as a technical violation of the law, yet in our opinion 
they have inured to the benefit of the State. 



It was charged on the streets and elsewhere that the Warden received 
rebates from the parties of whom he purchased supplies, and the charge 
seemed to have some foundation in fact from the testimony of Win. Myers. 
The committee deemed this matter of so much importance that they decided 
to examine the parties with whom the Warden had dealings, to ascertain the 
correctness of falsity of the charge, and to that end visited St. Louis, where 
his purchases, in the main, were made. In investigating this matter, the 
most, prominent business men of St. Louis were brought before the com- 
mittee and testimony was never more unanimous, all stating most emphati- 
cally that they had never paid or given to the Warden or any member of his 
family or anyone in his employ, directly or indirectly, any rebate or money 
or article of value of any kind or description in consideration of his making 
purchases of them. Further than this, they all stated that the Warden was 
a careful and prudent buyer, well posted in all lines of goods, and always 
securing the lowest prices when purchasing. This testimony is corroborated 
by the merchants of this city, of whom the Warden has made purchases. 

There has been considerable comment regarding the removal of United 
States prisoners from this Penitentiary to that at Chester, 111. We find that 
but one prisoner. M. E. Rodgers, was removed, his removal having been 
requested by himself and his friends, and the cause thereof being that he 
had been whipped for what is entered on the prison records as "fastidious- 
ness in dining room, etc." The punishment was inflicted October 1, 1880, 
and the extent thereof was three stripes. The correspondence of the War- 
den with Hon. Brewster Cameron of the Department of Justice at Wash- 
ington. D. C, which appears in the Warden's testimony, fully explains this 
matter. 

The committee finds that the convicts who have worked on Sunday did 
so voluntarily, for which they were paid by the contractors and the amount 
retained by them and that no convict has been forced to work against his 
will on Sunday. The only work done on Sunday was that of cleaning 
machinery and rubbing down seams in the saddle tree shop. It was neces- 
sary that this last labor should be performed on Sunday or the convicts in 
this shop were unemployed on Saturday. While opposed to compelling con- 
victs to work on Sunday, the committee believe that the contractors should 
not be denied a sufficient number of volunteers to clean up their machinery 
and to do Siny other work that may be absolutely necessary on that day. 

In January, 1881, th a Warden, by direction of the Inspectors, advertised 
for bids for supplying beef for the Penitentiary, the beef to be delivered on 
hoof at the prison, to be what is known as li butcher's beef " and net 50 per 
cent. When the bids were opened on February 8, 1881, it was found that 
there were three bidders — John W. Gordon of Cole, Newton & Son of 
Sedalia, and Waddy Thompson of Warrensburg, and the former being the 



lowest bidder, the contract was awarded to him. The testimony shows that 
there was a collusion between these bidders and the committee believe that 
each knew what the other was to bid and had agreed that Gordon was to be 
the lowest bidder. In consideration of this. Gordon permitted Newton & 
Son to furnish what is known as "cut" meat on his contract, and paid 
Thompson the sum of either $500 or $(>00. Newton & Son, who held the con- 
tract for supplying beef prior to January 1. 1881, were at that time supply- 
ing from 150 to 20(1 pounds of cut meat per day to the Penitentiary and 
continued to do so under Gordon's contracts until in September, 1881, when 
they w r ere notified by the Warden that no more would be received. A short 
time prior to this, Hon. Phil. E. Chappell, one of the Inspectors, discovered 
that this cut meat w r as being received and spoke to the Warden regarding it, 
advising him to receive no more of it, which advice the Warden promised to 
follow. However, this cut meat w r as received for some time after from 
Newton & Son of Sedalia, after this conversation, before it w<as stopped. 
For two months, November and December, 1881, from 150 to 200 pounds of 
cut meat was received daily from St. Louis, being shipped by the commission 
house of Gates & Co., on the order of Waddy Thompson. No cut meat was 
received after this time. Considerable of this meat, both of that from 
Sedalia and from St. Louis, was tainted and spoiled when it reached the 
Penitentiary and was thrown away. The price paid for this meat w r as from 
one to one and a quarter cents a pound less than the net price paid for the 
beef delivered at the Penitentiary on hoof. The testimony shows that none 
of the meat which was spoiled was paid for by the State. The committee 
failed to find that the Warden was in any way interested in the beef con- 
tracts, or that lie knew at the time of letting the contracts that there had 
been a combination between the bidders — Gordon, Thompson and Newton & 
Son. The committee unqualifiedly disapprove of these transactions. By 
direction of the Inspectors, the Warden had advertised for proposals to 
furnish all the beef required at the prison and the contracts therefor were 
approved by the Inspectors, and the committee deem it a violation of his 
duties for him to purchase beef from any other source or of any other kind 
than under the contract, While the Warden had unlimited control of the 
purchase of all supplies except this one item, the Inspectors sought to 
regulate this, and in our judgment, he had no right to make outside pur- 
chases to the extent which he did without their knowledge and consent. 

We find the Penitentiary in a clean, wdiolesome condition, well policed, 
and managed to the interest of the State. It is not self-supporting, but 
pays all expenses except that of the officers. With added facilities and new 
buildings about to be erected, it is to be hoped that a better price for the 
labor can be obtained, and the convicts be made not only to feed themselves 
but to pay all the expenses of guards, etc. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

029 827 208 8 

The Penitentiary discipline is under the direct control of the Warden 
and his deputy. As regards the punishment inflicted for violations of the 
rules, in some cases it may seem severe, but when we take into considera- 
tion the fact that the convicts imprisoned are bad, vicious men, confined for 
crime, and, as a punishment for crime of all grades, condemned to hard 
labor, all will admit that among them strict discipline must be enforced and 
the means and authority for punishment conferred upon the Warden must 
be adequate to this end. We feel a delioaey in making a recommendation 
in this regard, especially to satisfy the whims of impractical philanthropists, 
who would have the convicts treated as distinguished guests of the State, 
but prefer rather to leave the matter to the judgment of those who have 
charge of the Penitentiary, trusting to their experience, wisdom and 
humanity. 

The testimony shows that convict labor is employed at the Executive 
Mansion, without compensation to the State, in attending to the grounds, 
furnaces and the stables. This is unauthorized by law, being prohibited 
since the Revised Statutes of 1879, went into effect. 

In conclusion, your committee desire to state that they have made a 
thorough and impartial investigation of every charge made against the Peni- 
tentiary and have omitted no line of enquiry suggested by the charges in 
the public press, assertions on the streets or the investigation made by the 
Board of Inspectors, and find nothing worthy of mention in this report 
except as hereinbefore set out, and that, in no instance has there been any 
evidence of corruption or peculation. We submit herewith all the testi- 
mony taken by us for the information of the Senate, to which we refer for 
fuller details. 

JAMES McGRATH, Chairman. 

WM. G. DOWNING. 

T. J. O. MORRISSON. 

E. M. EDWARDS. 

JNO. H. BRITTS. 



